3 ms·

I think what the other commenter was trying to say was not that it would be impossible to do so, but that it would not be "right", so to speak. While you could

I think what the other commenter was trying to say was not that it would be impossible to do so, but that it would not be "right", so to speak. While you could of course exile them like other countries have done in the past, why would you do that? What reasoning would you use to justify exiling them, striping them of their personal property etc. ? Abolishing the monarchy is one thing, it can be justified pretty easily, the interests of the people. Anything beyond that however would be punishment, what have they done that is currently illegal that warrants that punishment? Punishing them simply "because they are royals" doesn't really work out, that isn't illegal after all. Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice.

crumbshot 6y ago
It wouldn't have to be deemed a punishment, merely a procedural item as part of establishing the Republic of Britain and eradicating any trace of royal privilege. > Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice. It wouldn't suffice, because they still derive a great deal of power from their inherited wealth. What's the point of abolishing the monarchy if we permit them to remain as landlords for huge swathes of the country? Then they're still lording it over people economically, even if no longer doing so constitutionally.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  I hope you'll excuse me for phrasing it this way, but it would not be a punishment only because a punishment is a lawful injury, and your "Republic Act" is decidedly unlawful: by interfering with the royals' persons, property, privacy, &c, without any clear finding of wrong-doing on their part, the act is offensive to the common law, the ECHR law, and other fancy international law. (Good legal scholarship has shown us in recent years that most of the ideas in the ECHR and other international conventions are derived from the English common law, a rich tradition of which you should be proud.) I am no fan of the royals and other nobles and look forward to the day when they all work for a living and wear seat belts like regular people. Yet, we must acknowledge that rule of law means law for the bad, the useless, and the rich. The ends don't justify the means.

crumbshot 6y ago

It wouldn't have to be deemed a punishment, merely a procedural item as part of establishing the Republic of Britain and eradicating any trace of royal privilege. > Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice. It wouldn't suffice, because they still derive a great deal of power from their inherited wealth. What's the point of abolishing the monarchy if we permit them to remain as landlords for huge swathes of the country? Then they're still lording it over people economically, even if no longer doing so constitutionally.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
I hope you'll excuse me for phrasing it this way, but it would not be a punishment only because a punishment is a lawful injury, and your "Republic Act" is decidedly unlawful: by interfering with the royals' persons, property, privacy, &c, without any clear finding of wrong-doing on their part, the act is offensive to the common law, the ECHR law, and other fancy international law. (Good legal scholarship has shown us in recent years that most of the ideas in the ECHR and other international conventions are derived from the English common law, a rich tradition of which you should be proud.) I am no fan of the royals and other nobles and look forward to the day when they all work for a living and wear seat belts like regular people. Yet, we must acknowledge that rule of law means law for the bad, the useless, and the rich. The ends don't justify the means.